The man at the very center of the “climate change” née “global warming” bull@#$% is now coming clean. Well, he’s starting to be forced in that direction as his institute’s email database has been leaked and has revealed that the whole hoax was indeed, well, a hoax. I’m sure it is all very cathartic for Professor Jones to be relieved of the burden of carrying the hoax that has cost mankind untold billions, nah, probably trillions. What now for Jones, his minions, and the stooge left that have fleeced us? I think next year’s Super Bowl half time show ought to feature some executions, and the new Cowboy stadium would be the perfect venue for that. Speaking of colossal waste.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits.

Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming.

Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt.

You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent.

But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body’s director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess.

Interviewed by the highly sympathetic BBC, which still insists on describing the leaked emails as ‘stolen’, Professor Jones has conceded that he ‘did not do a thorough job’ of keeping track of his own records.

His colleagues recall that his office was ‘often surrounded by jumbled piles of papers’.
Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.

He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.

This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapse.

It is quite reasonable to suggest that human activity may have had some effect on climate.

There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet.

But in the light of the ‘Climategate’ revelations, it is time for governments, academics and their media cheerleaders to be more modest in their claims and to treat sceptics with far more courtesy.

The question is not settled.

__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

yeah...just read about that on big government.....funny how all this almost invalidates itself...
its just funny how some feel about global warming as they do about religion....it has morphe into that for them.
i just opted out of an enviromental science class for a geology class because of this. i would like a real science to study, founded on science, not speculations, hyperobole, and religion.
to me, the idea that this notion of man being the major influence on climate is laughable.
hell....up until about two years ago i had no idea there had been up to six mass extincion events. we only covered the "one" in school....the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. now there is credible speculaiton on that.
you could go into things that are being learned today, based on things learned in the past. the "little" ice age, sunspot activity, etc. perfect example....eons ago (and this is a simplistic example), on the west coast, and around the world, there were no dense population areas. so, no fire departments. meaning, when you had a lightning striked, instead of thousands of acres being destroyed by fire, you had millions. the carbon dioxide from those fires alone dwarf what man does. anyway...just thought id throw that out there.

I was pretty sure all it would take to turn the climate change song and dance around would be an extremely cold and harsh winter...being that an extremely scorching hot summer is what brought all this hoopla to the forefront.

There's too many people though who will pay no attention to this though. Many have literally become addicted to the green movement and the eco guilt trips that come with it.

Hey, I'm all about "green". The dollar is green. I built an extremely green house in Florida long before this bulldookie emerged. All steel and masonry. Lived in it for 7 years. Saved a ton v conventional, and that was the motive. And the next house I build, Lord willing, will be even more "green", and entirely off the "grid" for the same reason - $$$.

Let’s see if I can accurately present some thoughts on this matter. I had an epiphany of sorts….
The problem those that oppose the green movement is this….and bear with me.
To sign on to the movement all civilizations of the globe must purposely scale back on technology that we are currently using, decrease comfort for the individual and family, destabilize greatly national economies, and the global economy, and raise taxes. Or at least, the output of money from individuals and families to cover going green.
As we have moved through time, civilization has tried to advance technology, and make the world easier to pass through for future generations. The old “I want my kids and grandkids to have it easier and better than I did”. To a large degree, the green movement would like civilization to take a step backwards. When, in the history of mankind has this happened? The steam engine was made to move forward. So were the combustible engine, the airplane, and nuclear power. These are just to name a few. Each step forward increased comfort levels, economic power and wealth, and the betterment of society.
Now, let us take for example some things that have been used to blast the global warming deniers. Called flat Earthers, using the fact the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc. Now the issue I have with these comparisons is this: these were things discovered by science through a constant. We started with thinking the sun revolved around the Earths (as we thought all things did), then came the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth revolves in a circle, then the Earth revolves in an elliptical fashion, then the Earth revolves in a modified elipse. All constants. These are things we could visually witness throughout time, and have empirical data to track. Take poor Pluto. We discovered that not long ago. We called it a planet, and due to other data we witnessed in the cosmos, we updated the poor guy to lesser status, planetoid. We once thought the band of stars you saw in the night sky was the stars at the center of our galaxy. We then discovered that, in actuality, it was only another arm of our spiral galaxy.
We do not have these constants and empirical data for manmade global warming. The science is relatively new. In the span of, roughly, a hundred years, the green movement has gone from one thing to another. New ice age coming, ozone depletion, global warming, climate change. All of this in a short span of time, where as other scientific discoveries have taken much more time to truly understand if the science (the discovery) was correct. And even those things have adjusted in thinking over time.
If we move forward on the things the green movement would want, we have quite a few negative things that will occur, which I noted some above. That is why there is such issue with what is being planned and discussed, all, supposedly, in the name of science.
Now, I also ask this….why, if there is such dire action we need to take now or global catastrophe, is this thing we have to move on? We already have nuclear and coal to utilize in abundance. Why do we not do a “Manhattan Project” style focus on making nuclear energy cleaner, safer, and cheaper? Or doing so with “clean” coal? Why is it that we have to go with unfounded technology such as solar or wind? In addition, I also submit this….the idea global warming is a dire threat. Scientists have stated, roughly, that the “catastrophes” will not occur for 20-100 years. However, a comet/meteor may strike the Earth at anytime.
It has happened in the past, and we know this will happen in the future. Which has a more catastrophic and immediate capability….global warming or a strike of that nature? It has been discussed that we do not have the technology to deal with such an issue, only speculation and theories. We may only get a warning of a couple years to a few months to act. However, we spend a minute amount of money for this very thing. From defending the planet to actually looking at the night sky to find these near earth objects. Isn’t that a more dire and possibly immediate threat?
I am not saying that we need to focus on this possible event. I am using it as a comparison to the supposed immediate action we have to take to global warming. In addition, it has been speculated on how much all of these actions being discussed to curb global warming would actually affect. I do not see moving forward on something we do not have all the science on and that will deeply impact the globe.
Anyway, that’s my take…..

Hey, I'm all about "green". The dollar is green. I built an extremely green house in Florida long before this bulldookie emerged. All steel and masonry. Lived in it for 7 years. Saved a ton v conventional, and that was the motive. And the next house I build, Lord willing, will be even more "green", and entirely off the "grid" for the same reason - $$$.

I always thought that was a nice perk to solar and the rest. Nothing against saving dough and living independently. I tried setting up my solar off the grid, and was told "no". On the plus side, I get credited when I produce a surplus, and during the winter I need the grid after all, so it's alright.

Just checking in to see if everyone here in SFF is still in Fantasyland. Good to see nothing's changed.

I'm not in fantasy land. I don't really know if the globe is currently warming or cooling, or what if any impact man has on the whole thing? And neither does anyone else when you come right down to it. But unlike many, I'm just willing to admit I don't know.

Oh I've read the theories from both sides, and neither have convinced me of a damn thing. I think these people write papers to gain further funding and will fudge the facts to suit their purpose whenever neccessary, and sometimes even when not.

Now if you're asking me if it's a good idea to start weaning ourselves from fossill fuels, I'm all for that, starting yesterday. The quicker we can start effeciently using other fuel sources the better.

But here's where i have a problem. With all the alarmist theories on global warming, co2 emmisions, cap and trade nonsense, and the like, ( total garbage imo) I think people are losing sight of things we probably do have more of an impact on, like our waterways. We need to stop using our lakes and oceans as dumping grounds immediatly.

So in essense I'm very skeptical that there's much to be done to change whatever direction the planet is deciding to send us off in climate wise.The realities of meeting the energy needs of 6 billion people are what they are, and unless you're proposing exterminating 2/3 of the worlds population in the next decade if the alarmist view is correct ( it's not ) then I guess we better enjoy what quality time we have left. .

But as i don't subscribe to alarmist theories and am not into fixing what can't or doesn't need to be fixed I think we'd be better to concentrate our efforts where they can actually have a postive impact. I think there's ton more we can do to clean up our water ways and water sources througout the world and we need to start working harder towards that end now and forevermore.

Getting back to so called global warming. For what it's worth, I'm all for funding feasible alternative energy sources. Starting with solar energy, there's finally some significant inroads being made there. I'm also very encouraged by the prospect of harnessing methane eminating from livestock waste etc... and no not because I think it will make a bit of difference towards planetary climate change. But because I don't want to be beholden to evaporating fule sources any longer, because it just doesn't make sense.

Lastly

Let's not ram legislation down peoples throats that will in effect do nothing to help the envirorment, all the while costing our economy billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of jobs while making Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi richer than the Pope.

I always thought that was a nice perk to solar and the rest. Nothing against saving dough and living independently. I tried setting up my solar off the grid, and was told "no". On the plus side, I get credited when I produce a surplus, and during the winter I need the grid after all, so it's alright.

A lot of "green" technology just works better. In terms of propulsion, Nimitz class carriers are among the most efficient devices on Earth. But you don't hear anybody calling them "green".

I'm a fan of steel framed houses because they're stronger and less expensive than lumber. I like super insulated houses because they are warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer and cost less to condition. Solar, wind and hydro technologies are becoming more practical by the day and are very attractive options in the right setting. Geothermal heat pumps beat hell out of "conventional" AC because they pull heat and cool out of the temperate Earth below. My minivan shuts down three cylinders when there's no load on the engine.

All this "green" stuff is great. I love it. But for different reasons than impact on the environment.

__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."